Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether unauthorized use of electricity has to be assessed under Section 24(1) of Indian Electricity Act 1910 read with Regulation 42(d) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Writ petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 mahazar prepared by the Vigilance and the Anti-Power Theft Section of the Electricity Board and Ext.P8 bill dated 5.10.2004 issued pursuant thereto contending that the invoice has been issued against the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Learned single Judge ordered reconnection with a direction to dispose of the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment the Kerala State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer have come up with this appeal.

3. M/s.Chicago Builders and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., has constructed a seven commercial complex with a revolving restaurant. Premises at the time of construction was having 3 phase connection with 5 KW in the name of one Janaki, vide consumer No.7485. The building was completed on 10.10.1999 as per records maintained in the Office of the Corporation of Kochi. Certain portions of the commercial complex were leased out/sold immediately after construction. Chicago Revolving Restaurant is functioning in the top floor. Najeeb Associates is functioning in the 4th floor. UTI Bank, Sharekhan, Pinnacle, Aviva etc. are functioning in the same complex.

4. The Anti-Power Theft Squad of the Electricity Board had inspected the premises of the petitioner on 30-5-2001 and found that the petitioner was using additional load of 35 KW over and above 5 KW. Sanctioned. Petitioner was then served with a notice No.CGE/APTS/7/01/-02/45 dt. 31-5-01 by Assistant Executive Engineer directing him to regularize the load by submitting application in proper form with connected documents failing which it was ordered that future bills would be issued at penal rate as per regulation 42(d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. He was also informed that revised bill would be issued for previous six months as per rules. Later bill dated 5-6-2001 for Rs.3,97,901/- was served on him for the use of unauthorized additional load of 35 KW; which was challenged in OP. 18433/01. Petitioner had also filed another OP.19022/01 challenging the bill dt.15-6-01 for Rs.1,72,041/- During the year 2002, petitioner directly or through his agents filed OP.12083/02, OP. 13509/02 challenging the various bills. During the year 2003, petitioner filed WP(C). 17394/03, WP(C). 24217/03, WP(C). 27098/03, WP(C). 30392/03, WP(C). 40782/03 challenging the various bills issued to him. Petitioner also filed WP(C). 4209/04, WP(C) 9976/04 and WP(C) 12091/04 challenging the various bills issued to him during the year 2004. Appeals preferred by him before the Assistant Executive Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer against some of the electricity bills were also dismissed. On dismissal of the various appeals by Assistant Executive Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer, a letter dated 29.4.2004 was issued directing him to pay an amount of Rs.13,61,885/- which was the balance amount by February 2004. Petitioner was informed that unless the amount is paid the supply would be disconnected. Aggrieved by the letter petitioner filed WP(C) 16215 of 2004. Learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 16215 of 2004. Learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 16215 of 2004. Learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 16215 of 2004 then directed the petitioner to furnish bank gurantee for the amount of Rs.16,61,885/- failing which it was ordered that service connection would be disconnected. Consequently, bank guarantee was furnished by the petitioner.

5. Original Petition No.13509 of 2002, WP(C). Nos.4209, 9976, 120691 and 16215 of 2004 later came up for consideration before this Bench. Considering the entire facts and circumstance